But not because of falling subscriber rates.

Quote :

"PARIS — The office of a French satirical magazine [Charlie Hebdo] here was badly damaged by a firebomb early on Wednesday, the publisher said, after it published a spoof issue “guest edited” by the Prophet Muhammad to salute the victory of an Islamist party in Tunisian elections. The publication also said hackers had disrupted its Web site. ... The magazine’s editor, Stephane Charbonnier, told Europe 1 radio that the police had called just before 5 a.m. to report a fire of criminal origin. News reports said a Molotov cocktail had been thrown through a window. The special edition was on its way to the newsstands, the editor said, and will appear as scheduled. But, he added: “We are homeless and we have no way to put out the magazine. We hope this won’t be the last issue.” “We can’t put out the magazine under these conditions,” he said. “The stocks are burned, smoke is everywhere, the paste-up board is unusable, everything is melted, there’s no more electricity.” ... Islamic law usually forbids depictions of the prophet. The edition of Charlie Hebdo that apparently inspired the fire-bombing showed a cartoon of Muhammad and the words: “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter.” ... The Associated Press quoted Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, as saying his organization deplores “the very mocking tone of the paper toward Islam and its prophet but reaffirms with force its total opposition to all acts and all forms of violence.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-magazine-in-paris-is-firebombed.html?hp

[Edited on November 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM. Reason : link]

11/2/2011 10:05:40 AM

Another reason I don't care for religion... especially this one.

11/2/2011 10:08:04 AM

I don't see the problem. If it wasn't for goofy mystical beliefs, I'm sure people would have found another reason to firebomb that magazine.

11/2/2011 10:08:33 AM

People suffering from socioeconomic hardships, no doubt.

11/2/2011 10:11:47 AM

While this particular comic seems fairly innocuous, the French are not known for their tact. I would summarize their idea of comedy as "hateful, racist remarks with a tone of dismissive superiority".

11/2/2011 12:43:15 PM

Clearly deserving of a firebombing.

11/2/2011 12:44:12 PM

Quote :

"If it wasn't for goofy mystical beliefs, I'm sure people would have found another reason to firebomb that magazine."

Substitute a comic of Mohammed with some other cultural stereotyping independent of religion. I'm sure certain combinations around the world will illicit a similar response.
Or heck, just walk into the wrong neighborhood wearing the wrong colors.

Certain symbolism or certain mockery of symbolism will always have the chance to cause destruction. Religion is just one of a myriad of triggers for such situations. But I suppose that doesn't appropriately match your mongering. Sometimes I wonder if you even read what you type sometimes.

11/2/2011 1:54:45 PM

*elicit*

I strongly deplore the criminal act, and I hope they are brought to justice.

As I said elsewhere, democracy is impossible in any Arab country, and this is just a manifestation of that.

11/2/2011 2:09:17 PM

Quote :

"Certain symbolism or certain mockery of symbolism will always have the chance to cause destruction. Religion is just one of a myriad of triggers for such situations."

Human nature, got it.

All the "myriad of triggers" of which religion is just a subset need to be expunged from existence. Holding symbols sacred enough to commit violence at their mockery is absolutely stupid.

Quote :

"*elicit* I strongly deplore the criminal act, and I hope they are brought to justice. As I said elsewhere, democracy is impossible in any Arab country, and this is just a manifestation of that."

I wonder how possible democracy is when the ruling class feels it necessary to execute apostates and dissenters.

[Edited on November 2, 2011 at 2:28 PM. Reason : wasn't directed properly.]

11/2/2011 2:28:19 PM

I'm tired of people getting violent when some :gasp: doesn't tolerate their beliefs :gasp:

The world is becoming too full of oversensitive assholes.

http://youtu.be/zwoqzb5R6vw

11/2/2011 2:33:34 PM

Quote :

"All the "myriad of triggers" of which religion is just a subset need to be expunged from existence. Holding symbols sacred enough to commit violence at their mockery is absolutely stupid."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

11/2/2011 3:18:05 PM

So are you saying that we need to violently defend symbols in order to not be drones? Are you actually saying that this act of violence was justified?

To be fair, what I should have said instead of 'expunged' is that humanity should grow the fuck up and abandon all sacred symbols. They should be forgotten as remnants of a barbaric past.

[Edited on November 2, 2011 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2011 3:29:32 PM

Thank you Dr. Breen.

Seriously though, I too want humanity to evolve into something else.

11/3/2011 2:09:56 AM

To what exactly, especially regarding the violent defense of sacred symbols?

11/3/2011 8:39:44 AM

Quote :

"As I said elsewhere, democracy is impossible in any Arab country, and this is just a manifestation of that."

so basically what you're saying is "hurr dem sand-niggers are dum"

11/4/2011 6:35:31 AM

if the shoe fits

11/4/2011 8:27:49 AM

^^ I have never used that racist terminology and I never will.

My statement comes after spending 27 years in an Arab country and getting to know the Arab mind inside out. I am not an Arab myself, but that is irrelevant as I would have come to the same conclusion even if I were an Arab. Many of my Arab friends/colleagues have told me the same thing.

Read this post of mine which goes into some detail why a proper democracy with freedom of thought, speech, and action is impossible in an Arab country: message_topic.aspx?topic=610620&page=2#14959699

11/4/2011 5:34:38 PM

Quote :

"If it wasn't for goofy mystical beliefs, I'm sure people would have found another reason to firebomb that magazine."

I see what you're driving at, but this is just inane. Without religion, there's no article mocking religion, there's no violence. Obviously.

But people get irrationally violent over petty shit that has nothing to do with religion. Plenty of firebombs went off in this country over how tan someone was -- and more than a few of those were in churches doctrinally indistinguishable from the ones that served those who set the goddamn bombs.

11/4/2011 11:10:38 PM

Quote :

"To what exactly, especially regarding the violent defense of sacred symbols?"

Humans will have to change biologically before irrational violence is "expunged". Its part of our genetic design. Such a people would need a new taxonomic classification.

11/5/2011 6:03:38 AM

Quote :

"But people get irrationally violent over petty shit that has nothing to do with religion."

No one argues religion is the only cause of senseless violence. We only argue that it is a unique cause of violence distinct from other causes of violence, and for reasons that probably are not clear to you, that it is a very stupid cause for violence.

11/7/2011 11:59:11 PM

I think it'd be tough to argue that there's a reason for violence that is more stupid than skin tone.

11/8/2011 12:34:01 AM

At least it's more cogent then "I need to hurt you in defense of my imaginary friend." Harming other people on the basis of something that cannot even be proven to exist is the ultimate in psychosis, in my opinion.

Quote :

"Humans will have to change biologically before irrational violence is "expunged". Its part of our genetic design. Such a people would need a new taxonomic classification."

Strange, I'm the atheist and you're the one that condones our animalistic behavior. The best part about our emergent intelligence is our ability to grow beyond the animals that we are. Do you also think artists require a new taxonomic classification because they exhibit behaviors that are not innate to wild homo sapiens? Should we have different taxonomic classifications for monogomous and polyamorous people? This whole line of reasoning is retarded since taxonomy is subjective and based as much as on morphology as on genetics anyway. Genetic variation abounds within species, whether two individuals can successfully breed fertile offspring is the true definition of species anyway.

Besides, religion isn't part of our genetic code; it's a learned behavior. It can and should be unlearned along with the irrationality it causes while hanging onto whatever good we can from it.

[Edited on November 8, 2011 at 9:03 AM. Reason : taxonomy]

11/8/2011 8:52:39 AM

Quote :

"I think it'd be tough to argue that there's a reason for violence that is more stupid than skin tone."

I'll leave it to you to argue about which is more stupid.

11/8/2011 9:24:42 AM

Quote :

"At least it's more cogent then "I need to hurt you in defense of my imaginary friend." "

Generally I don't think this is the thought process behind violence in the name of religion, though I could be wrong. What you see as an offense to a deity, they see as an offense to their culture, way of life, and dignity. A person who believes in God doesn't think they have to stand up for him -- he's God, he can take care of himself.

11/8/2011 6:00:53 PM

Tell that to Muhammad and his followers.

11/9/2011 2:47:54 AM

4^ You weren't talking about genetic variation. You were talking about a fundamental change in the behavior of the whole of the human population.

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 2:51 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2011 2:50:54 AM

Quote :

"Generally I don't think this is the thought process behind violence in the name of religion, though I could be wrong. What you see as an offense to a deity, they see as an offense to their culture, way of life, and dignity. A person who believes in God doesn't think they have to stand up for him -- he's God, he can take care of himself. "

Pass the buck all you like. Their culture, way of life, dignity, etc. specifically regarding the defense of sacred symbols to the point of harming others is based on theistic belief. It really does make sense that an omnipotent being would not need defending, but since the belief in the first place isn't rational why would it be treated rationally by the believers?

Lumex, what is your point? You are more than the sum of your genes. Your genes have afforded you a great intelligence that you can use to reason and behave in ways that could not possibly have been spelled out by your DNA. What do genes have to do with the problem of people hurting each other over the sacred symbols?

11/9/2011 8:50:20 AM

Quote :

"While this particular comic seems fairly innocuous, the French are not known for their tact. I would summarize their idea of comedy as "hateful, racist remarks with a tone of dismissive superiority"."

in other news, Lumex stock plummets to 0.000% credibility and possibly shittiest poster on the internet

11/9/2011 11:39:53 AM

I'd argue, but you seem to be the ultimate authority in that matter.

^^ My point is, I don't think humanity will ever "grow the fuck up and abandon all sacred symbols" without some kind of evolution, mass-lobotomy or matrix-like simulation of paradise It is true that many individuals can act completely rationally, but I don't think our species, as a whole, will achieve that naturally.

Sorry for being a Debbie-downer.

11/9/2011 2:48:31 PM

Muslims falling behind in the death toll, trying to catch up, thanks a lot Mr. Breivik !

11/9/2011 3:00:59 PM

Quote :

"^^ My point is, I don't think humanity will ever "grow the fuck up and abandon all sacred symbols" without some kind of evolution, mass-lobotomy or matrix-like simulation of paradise It is true that many individuals can act completely rationally, but I don't think our species, as a whole, will achieve that naturally. "

Well, I heartily disagree. I'm sure 500 years ago you'd be arguing that people enslaving other people was something that would take evolution, mass-lobotomy or matrix-like simulation of paradise to undo. Major, species-wide behavioral adjustments occur over time, but they have occurred and continue to occur without evolving into a new species, or that other nonsense you mention.

That is not to say that every single person has changed or that there aren't sociopaths, but I'm not suggesting that it's even possible to change every single person. I'm speaking generally about society, not every single individual.

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2011 3:21:57 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure 500 years ago you'd be arguing that people enslaving other people was something that would take evolution, mass-lobotomy or matrix-like simulation of paradise to undo. "

Except we still enslave, only now slaves get to choose their master through a complex ritual called "hiring", and get little tokens for their work that they get to exchange for goods sold by other masters.

11/9/2011 3:36:34 PM

Oh and sometimes a slave gets lucky and becomes a master himself, but even that happened in the old days sometimes too.

11/9/2011 3:36:59 PM

Sigh.

11/9/2011 3:38:16 PM

Ya just ignore me I'm just having fun

11/9/2011 3:39:57 PM

Bump.

3/30/2015 2:38:45 AM

ummm... aren't you a bit late?

also, mag is doing better than ever *because* of the attack.

3/30/2015 3:39:11 AM

That was my first post since 2012, so yes, you could say that I have been quite tardy on this and all other subjects.

And solid point about their (likely brief) boom in popularity, hard gained as it was.

3/30/2015 6:46:34 AM